





■ IT. 


















, : v,. 


- vJTws 











;> 


C 









V; *> /•; . » . V ;i w 

«»**••;.* -4«w»^p-• ••>'•»<•"**',sv.*-vf'^ '*+*■ •'* ■’•'■ ■’ ' V ** JV>k; ‘ r -<'.->&4, 




H«IL, 

















d 


California a Republican State. 


Address to the Republicans of California , by JOHN F. 
SWIFT, late candidate for Governor. ( He reviews 
the Campaign of 1886, and invites the party to or¬ 
ganize and unite for the Presidential election. He 
declares that the State is Republican by 15,000 ma¬ 
jority—The outlook for success in the coining Presi¬ 
dential contest excellent—The Republicans will elect 
the next President. ) 


To the Republicans of California: 

The time has arrived for Republicans to set about organ¬ 
izing for the coming Presidential election. Having been 
defeated, as your candidate for Governor, at the last State 
election, and the Democrats making this result the ground 
for a claim that the State is Democratic, or at least doubt¬ 
ful, I deem it my duty to address you thus early in the cam¬ 
paign, lest my silence should be construed as an acquiesc¬ 
ence in the claim, and to a want of faith in the triumph of 
our candidates and principles at the election next Novem¬ 
ber. I dispute the claim most decidedly. 

This is not a Democratic State, nor was it so in 1886, ex¬ 
cept as the result of a conjunction of factitious incidents 
that ought not to have occurred then, and not in the least 
likely to occur again. That the defeat of a portion of our 
ticket in 1886 was due to preventable causes, only adds to 
the chagrin of Republicans at such a result. 

The most important of these was the accidental, and, I 
trust, temporary, diversion of some six thousand votes, the 




4 


riod is reached in American development that the public 
interest demands a cessation of immigration, it should be 
accomplished by direct and specific laws prohibiting it in 
terms. 

In my opinion, it would be unwise to repeal our natural¬ 
ization laws while permitting free and unlimited immi¬ 
gration. Such a system would not stop the coming of the 
undesirable classes, but would operate directly in the con¬ 
trary direction. The good people, the honorable and the 
high-spirited, would stay away, while the ignorant, the 
brutal and the vicious would come quite as much as ever. 

But, it may be said, these last-named, without the elec¬ 
tive franchise, could do us no harm, for they would have no 
voice in our affairs. But is this true? Can a non-voting 
population do us no mischief ? Do men wait for their cer¬ 
tificates of naturalization before entering upon such work 
as their mental or physical habits fit them for ? 

Agassiz began his noble work of educating our people 
and the world as soon as he landed on our shores. But in 
the same way John Most sets about his special and mis¬ 
chievous occupation without waiting for so much as his first 
papers. 

The Anarchists of Chicago needed no naturalization cer¬ 
tificates as a prerequisite to their work of destruction and 
murder. Repealing the Naturalization Acts would 
not keep the professional beggar from coming among 
us to ply his trade. Non-citizenship has no terrors for him. 
The miserable starveling pauper of Europe is willing to 
come under contract to underwork our American labor¬ 
ers, not because of any wish for the suffrage. He would 
come all the same though assured that he might never 
vote nor hold office. The Chinese force their way into 
the country without a thought of citizenship. If depriving 
them of the vote annuls or mitigates the evil of undesirable 
population why exclude the Mongolian ? The mischiefs of 
a disfranchised population settled in the heart of the body 


■m 


5 


politic are infinite. Volumes could be written upon the 
subject without enumerating them all. But it is enough to 
say that free popular government is incompatible with such 
conditions. 

It seems to me that any man not good enough to become 
a citizen should not be allowed to settle in the country, but 
should be kept out altogether. 

But while both the right and the propriety of discussing 
these questions are clear, as well as that of acting upon them 
when the proper time comes, yet it is neither honorable nor 
fair play between man and man to make such discussion the 
vehicle of insult and contumely to our adopted fellow-citi¬ 
zens who have, upon the invitation of the founders of the 
Republic, left their native land to come among us, nor have we 
the moral right to withhold or impair privileges already 
extended to them. 

Above all things, it is wrong to stir up, under any 
pretense, that latent religious prejudice that unfortunately 
lies only too near the surface in the breasts of the gentlest 
and most humane of men. 

To do this is distinctly to do an injury to the country 
under pretense of benefiting it. 

Laws have already been passed, and are now in force, in¬ 
tended to restrict the coming of criminals, paupers and 
other undesirable people. 

This was accomplished, as are most good political meas¬ 
ures, by the Republican party before the American party of 
California was thought of. When other legislation is 
needed in the same direction, there is no doubt that it will 
be promoted by the same influences, and without stirring 
up strife between neighbors or setting citizen against citizen. 

The Democratic party has hitherto had the support of the 
larger share of the foreign vote, but the Republican party 
has at all times held in its ranks a very respectable and in¬ 
telligent minority of them. In the State of California we 
h$ve always been able to count upon the votes of certainly 


6 


as many as 15,000 Hebrew, Catholic, and foreign-born citi¬ 
zens as a regular party force, at the very least. Indeed, 
it is likely that 20,000 would be much nearer the mark. 

At any rate, it will hardly be disputed that if for any rea¬ 
son we should lose that vote, we could not hope to carry 
any election at which such a result should occur. 

It is true that we have no right to sacrifice any princi¬ 
ple in order to hold this vote, but we have the right, and it 
is our duty, to recognize their just rights as citizens and as 
members of the party in good standing along with the 
others. 

It is our duty, when their already acquired rights are at¬ 
tacked or called in question, that we disconnect ourselves 
as a party from such attack and pledge them our support in 
what the Constitution and the laws have accorded to 
them. This is not demagogy, but simple justice. 

These being my views, when the San Francisco Argonaut 
in 1886, after I received the Republican nomination for 
Governor, undertook to place me in a position where my 
election would be made to appear a special vindication and 
triumph for that journal in the course it has so long marked 
out for itself in attacking Catholics, Hebrews, and natural¬ 
ized citizens, and to brand the Republican party, through its 
candidate, with the stamp of these opinions, I conceived it 
to be my duty to refuse to be placed in such a position, or- 
to be used for such a purpose, and declined in terms that 
were intended to be firm yet respectful to accept the nom¬ 
ination . 

I will briefly summarize the facts, showing how Repub¬ 
licans were misled and a portion of our ticket defeated: 

Several months previous to the election of 1886 a meeting 
was held at Fresno City to form an American party. 

The Hon. P. D. Wigginton, a gentleman of decided prom¬ 
inence in the State, a Democrat of recognized standing, and 
an ex-member of Congress, was the leader and prime mover. 

A Convention was called to be held on the 2d day of 


October, 1886, at Fresno City, to nominate an American 
State ticket. 

Three weeks before the meeting of the Fresno Convention, 
without warning, I was surprised by finding in the columns 
of the San Francisco Argonaut an editorial article present¬ 
ing my name as a candidate for Governor at the head of a 
ticket which purported to be an American ticket, upon a 
platform expressing the well-known views of that journal, 
not emanating from the Fresno party of Mr. Wigginton and 
his colleagues, but selected by twelve gentlemen (names not 
given) friends of the Argonaut , which article assumed to 
speak authoritatively as to the opinions of the candidates so 
nominated. 

On the same ticket were placed a portion of my Repub¬ 
lican co-nominees, along with a part of the Democratic 
candidates. Several of my associates were not so nom¬ 
inated. 

The article declared substantially that these candidates 
‘ ‘ represented the idea of Americans of native birth being 
first entitled to enjoy the offices of the country,” to the ex¬ 
clusion of citizens by adoption. 

It further proceeded to declare (I quote literally)— 

“That a person born abroad, who came to the 
country young, who does not acknowledge the 
right of the Pope to exercise civil authority in any 
country, or of the Roman Catholic Church to interfere 
in the politics of the United States of America, who 
does not believe in papal infalibility, who was educated in 
the public schools, and does not send his children to pa¬ 
rochial schools, and is not an Irish Home-Rule agitator, 
who does not go to confession, and who only attends the 
Catholic Church when in good taste he cannot avoid it, is 
not regarded as ineligible to a place upon the American 
Ticket, provided, he is patriotic American of honorable 
conduct and specially qualified for the position designated.” 
— S. F. Argonaut , Sept. 18, 1886. 

I am able to assert with considerable certainty, that there 


had been at that time no communication between the editor 
of the Argonaut and Mr. Wigginton, touching any alliance 
or co-operation of forces. 

But to place the matter beyond any sort of question, in 
the identical issue of the Argonaut , in which I found myself 
so unexpectedly nominated by it, namely, the number of 
September 18, 1886, appeared an editorial confirmation of 
this view. The following is a copy: 

“ In reply to numerous inquiries concerning the move¬ 
ment at Fresno, for an American Ticket, and whether we are 
co-operating with its movers, and whether it meets with our 
approval, we are compelled to say, that we know nothing of 
it, have not been advised concerning it, have not been in¬ 
formed of its organization, strength, or purpose, and know 
nothing concerning it other than what appears in publie 
journals and what is contained in a recent circular sent to 
us, and which is generally distributed throughout the State.’" 
— S. F. Argonaut , September 18, 1886. 

On reading these two articles, I came to the conclusion, 
that both upon principle, and expediency, it was a duty I 
owed to myself, to the party, and to the rest of the ticket, 
to repudiate this sectarian nomination and its platform. I 
immediately prepared and sent off for publication, a letter 
which appeared in the San Francisco Evening Bulletin the 
same evening declining the honor. 

In giving my reasons for repudiating the nomination of 
the San Francisco Argonaut , I said, among other things, in 
the same direction as follows, viz: 

“ I believe that the policy adopted in the early days of 
the Republic of extending the right of citizenship to all 
Europeans, in order to encourage their coming hither, w r as 
wise policy, and I would not change it if I had the power/* 

“ I believe that Roman Catholics and Jews, are as loyal to 
Republican institutions, as Protestant Christians, or people 
of any other faith.”— S. F. Chronicle , September 19, 1886. 
S. F. Bulletin, September 18, 1886. 


9 


If I had said less than this, or believed less, I should 
have had no right to ask, or to expect the votes of the at 
least 15,000 Catholics, Hebrews, and naturalized citizens, 
who habitually vote with our party, who belong to it as part 
of its regular force, and whose votes are necessary to its 
success, at any election in this State. 

Indeed, as an honest man, I had no right to accept their 
votes, if I felt towards them as the Argonaut , in its article 
nominating me substantially declared that I did feel. 

In the very next issue of the Argonaut , viz: September 
25, 1886, there appeared an article very sarcastic and hos¬ 
tile in tone, addressed to me, skillfully and ingeniously pre¬ 
pared, so as to give the impression that I had declined not 
the Argonaut nomination as was the fact, but the nomina¬ 
tion of the American Party, and that I had done so in a 
spirit of demagogy, in order to catch the Irish Catholic 
vote. 

In the body of this article was published what purported 
to be a copy of my letter of declination, but which carefulhj 
omitted and left out the sentence in which I had placed the 
Jews along with the Catholics as being loyal to our institu¬ 
tions. The effect of this change, or omission, was to give 
the impression, as it was evidently intended to do, that I 
was imbued with some special sympathy toward members 
of the Catholic Church, that I did not feel towards the pro¬ 
fessors of other religious faiths, and thus strengthen the 
charge that I was acting the part of a demagogue with re¬ 
spect to the Irish Catholics. 

From that time forward every means was taken by those 
in charge of the Fresno movement, to confuse the Republi¬ 
can voters as to what I had actually done, and to give 
currency to the charge directly stated by the Argonaut that 
I had been nominated by the Fresno Convention, had de¬ 
clined its support, had repudiated its platform, and that the 
nomination of Mr. Wigginton had been made simply to fill 
the place vacated by me. 


10 


In an article published in that journal on the 16th of Oc¬ 
tober, this fact is asserted in direct terms. From it I quote 
the following: 

“ The Executive Committee of the American Party has 
contracted with the Argonaut for the issue of an extra and 
special edition of 50,000 numbers containing * * * the 

correspondence between the editor of the Argonaut and 
the Hon. John F. Swift, the candidate of the Republican 
Party for Governor, in which he repudiates the 'principles of 
the American Party , and declines to alloiu his name to he 
printed at the head of its ticket .” * * *— S. F. Argonaut , 

October 16, 1886. 

This “ contract ” was carried out and 50,000 copies of my 
letter with the sentence about the Jews left out, hut purport¬ 
ing to he complete , circulated over the State. 

This statement was utterly insincere. I had not “repu¬ 
diated the principles of the American Party/’ as every lead¬ 
er and manager of that organization knew full well. I 
never laid eyes upon its platform till more than a week after 
Mr. Wigginton had been nominated. I had never declined 
to allow my name to be printed at the head of its ticket, as 
they all knew r to a man. I had never had the ghost of a 
chance to get the nomination, if I had wanted it ever so 
much, as they knew. After Mr. Wigginton was nominated, 
as beyond question he had always intended to be, they con¬ 
cocted the story as part of the maneuver, that I had been 
written to and offered the nomination. Several days after 
the Fresno Convention had adjourned I received at San 
Bernardino a printed circular containing the party platform, 
but it bore the post-mark of a day subsequent to the ad¬ 
journment. It was probably mailed at that late day to ease 
somebody’s conscience who intended to assert it had been 
sent to me. With that platform I could have had no quar¬ 
rel. There was no reason for repudiating it. 

There was nothing in it that the most stalwart Republican 
may not sincerely favor without ceasing to be a Republican, 


11 


and much that the best Republicans are strongly in favor 
of, indeed, that is good recognized Republican doctrine. 

The Fresno American platform that I was falsely accused 
of repudiating was in substance as follows: 

Resolved, “ That all law-abiding citizens of the United 
States, whether native or foreign born, are political equals, 
and all citizens are entitled to and should receive the full 
protection of the laws.” 

Resolved, “ That the naturalization laws of the United 
States should be unconditionally repealed.” 

Resolved, “That the soil of America should be long to 
Americans, and that no alien non-resident should be allowed 
to own real estate in the United States, and that the real 
possessions of all alien residents should be limited in value 
and area.” 

Resolved, “That all persons not in sympathy with our 
Government, should be prohibited from immigrating to 
these United States.” 

The remaining resolutions in the platform, of which there 
were six, were devoted respectively to “ the teaching of 
trades to American boys and girls;” against “ Bossism in 
politics;” in favor of “irrigation;” of “tax reform;” of 
“ protection to American industries;” and of “ education;” 
and each of these questions was treated in accordance to 
the well established principles of the Republican Party.— 
S. F. Argonaut, October 16, 1886. 

The platform suggested no attack upon the legal or con¬ 
stitutional rights of any citizen or class of citizens, native 
or naturalized. 

Not a word or hint was anywhere contained giving any 
expression for or against the Roman Catholics, the Jews, or 
upon any religious or sectarian question whatever. There 
was no reference to the propriety or to the impropriety of 
naturalized citizens holding or enjoying “ the offices of the 
country,” or suggesting that native born Americans should 
be preferred to them for that or for any political purpose. 
In a word it was as unlike the Argonaut platform upon 


which I had been nominated as any two declaration of prin¬ 
ciples could well be. 

It is no wonder that such Republicans as think the time 
is near or at hand for restricting general immigration, 
should hesitate to support a candidate who had such hostile 
views on the subject as were thus unjustly and falsely at¬ 
tributed to me. 

But this is not written to put anybody in the wrong or 
myself in the right. The matter has passed into history, 
and the personal part of it is of no further consequence. I 
wish that the truth be known, not for my own benefit, but 
for the benefit of the Republican party, in order to show 
that there is no just cause for any division in their ranks; 
in order to show the American party of last year that they 
properly belong with the old party, and not elsewhere, and 
not to defend my own action, which, having had the approv¬ 
al of my own judgment and conscience at the time, has 
no need of any defense. 

But if I might be allowed to say a word in that behalf, it 
would be that wliat I did was necessary to the position of 
the party in the future, to show that it leaves every citizen 
the right to his own religious convictions, and that Repub¬ 
lican Catholics, Republican Jews and Republican adopted 
citizens are not obliged to leave the Republican party in 
order to defend the rights and privileges the Constitution, 
and laws of the land have guaranteed to them. 

Viewing it in the mere light of immediate expediency,, 
still it seems to me that I took the only course justifiable 
after the incident once became inevitable. 

Remember that Mr. Wigginton had the control of the 
Fresno movement he had produced for his own purposes.. 
He was an old-line Democrat. I did not know him, and 
all he knew of me was as a political antagonist who had 
always opposed him. 

Mr. Bartlett, my opponent, was a Democrat of Mr. Wig- 
ginton’s own strictest school. In addition to this bond of 


affiliation, lie had been an old-time “ Know-Nothing.” 
Would any Democrat, Southern or Northern, of Native 
American or “ Know Nothing proclivities, have left him 
for me, to please either the Argonaut or the Fresno Conven¬ 
tion ? 

It seems to me reasonable that Mr. Wigginton would 
naturally hold his forces in hand so as to utilize them for 
his own advancement, and failing in that, then for the benefit 
of those most nearly to his own way of thinking. 

That, admitting that it was no part of his scheme to be¬ 
come the nominee of his own convention, it was always cer¬ 
tain that the nomination would be used for the advantage of 
his old associates in the Democratic party rather than to 
that of his opponents, the Republicans, and that it would in 
the end be turned to the benefit of Mr. Bartlett and Mr. 
Hearst, as it finally was; and that, had I accepted the Argo¬ 
naut's nomination, I should have lost the enemies of that 
journal without gaining its friends, a combination of cir¬ 
cumstances under which it is hardly likely that any candi¬ 
date could have been elected in California at that time. 
Instead of 600, as the “Argonaut ” candidate, under these 
conditions I must have been beaten 6,000 at least. 

Although I made no suggestion or request to that effect, 
I thought in 188 >, and think still, that all the Republican 
nominees who were named by the Argonaut as its candidates 
should have declined the honor. Had they done so, the 
entire Republican ticket would have been elected instead of 
only a part. By remaining on both tickets they contrib¬ 
uted to the state of doubt and confusion that was so artfully 
worked up in the interest of Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Hearst, 
and which ended by losing a portion of the Republican 
ticket—6,000 good Republican votes, the most of them 
through this very confusion and misapprehension. I can¬ 
not believe that the Republican candidates who accepted 
the Argonaut nomination entertained the opinions with re¬ 
spect to naturalized citizens, Catholics and other religionists 


14 


of the journal that nominated them. And if they did, the 
Republican party, that had first nominated them, did not, 
does not, and these gentlemen had no right to hold both places 
unless they agreed with both. This they did, and in many in¬ 
stances contributed funds for campaign purposes to the 
leaders of the American party. It was a wrong to the Re¬ 
publican party, and however upright may have been the 
motive, was practically an act of bad faith, if not to all on 
the Republican ticket, certainly fo all who did not get both 
nominations (as several did not). This seems to me to be too 
manifest for discussion. It was not only bad morals, but 
bad practical politics, and was one of the active and con¬ 
trolling causes that led to the defeat of part of the ticket 
and the jeopardy of the whole. Of course, any of them who 
hold that a naturalized citizen should not have an office as 
long as one of native birth can be found to take it, and that 
a Catholic, no matter how upright, honorable and patriotic, 
cannot be trusted unless he repudiates a cardinal tenet 
of his faith and refuses to go to mass, was justified in ac¬ 
cepting the nomination; but I doubt if any had such opin¬ 
ion. If any do, it is not too late to speak even now. 

For my part, I am proud to be able to say that, as 
the Republican candidate I upheld its highest prin¬ 
ciples, of the broadest toleration to all men in their relig¬ 
ious opinions, and that the party has nothing to explain or 
apologize for in the coming campaign for anything I did or 
permitted. 

I have made this statement for the benefit of Republicans 
in California and the East, to show what I feel and say is 
the fact, that our State is a Republican State. I offer it 
now as my deliberate opinion that nothing can prevent Cal¬ 
ifornia from giving a majority for the Republican ticket of 
from twelve to fifteen thousand in November next. It is 
more likely to exceed than to fall short of this estimate. 

In conclusion, I ask Republicans to lay aside all dissen¬ 
sions and disagreements for the common good, and come 


15 


together with the spirit of the glorious past, ancl victory is 
sure to result. 

At no period since Grant’s second term has the outlook 
for Republican success been so good as at this moment. 

Our party was defeated in 1884 chiefly by that distrust 
and popular suspicion that is inevitable from long continued 
governmental responsibility. No party in the history of 
the country had ever been so long in office. “Let us look 
at the books,” was the phrase that formulated this distrust. 
It was certain that,sooner or later this feeling must produce 
a change of administration. The demand for a change of 
administration is almost the only measure in politics that 
requires no given reason in its support. It is always in 
order. The change came in 1884. The wonder is it did not 
come sooner. The country has seen the books, and since 
that time it is the Democrats who are on the defensive. 
Their chief claim to office seems to be that in three years 
they have held power they have not paid the Rebel debt, 
renewed the Rebellion, nor dissolved the Union. 

Apparently it is such a surprise to the party that they 
have done none of these things, that until lately they seemed 
likely to go into the coming campaign upon the record of 
that astonishing fact alone. 

But the Chief of the party has boldly and frankly resolved 
otherwise, and has tendered an issue that Republicans will¬ 
ingly accept. 

I will not say in terms that President Cleveland is a Free 
Trader, for it is neither just nor courteous to call a man or 
a party by a name that he or it denies and repudiates, but 
he certainly attacks the protective system. That high tar¬ 
iff to which revenue is incidental and protection of home 
productions and American labor the leading purpose, which 
Republicans believe to be the actual cause and promoter 
of the unexampled prosperity of our country, a degree of 
prosperity that is the wonder and marvel of the age, and 
which we take pride in designating as the “ American sys- 


16 


tern,” is in deadly peril and must fight for its life, and the 
battle is now opening. In such a contest our State has 
a peculiar interest. 

If the [Republican party fails to carry the election, the 
farmers and fruit-growers, the vineyardists and wool-pro¬ 
ducers and lumbering men of California must divide profits 
with their rivals of Europe, Canada and Australia, or find 
some occupation that does not interfere with the interests 
of their competitors in those countries, for the Californian 
is not more highly thought of in the average Democratic 
Congress than are non-resident aliens. 

But we shall not fail to carry the election. I am as con¬ 
fident of electing a Republican President in November as 
I am of carrying California. 

If I cio not greatly mistake the character and spirit of the 
six thousand Republicans who voted the American ticket in 
1886, in such a contest they will be found standing in line 
with their old Republican comrades at the next election, 
defending the American system, and there I shall be glad 
to meet them and clasp hands. 

In the effort the Republican party will make this coming 
summer and autumn to preserve that system which has 
already brought such prosperity to our State and to the na¬ 
tion, I shall take an active and earnest part. I shall can¬ 
vass the State, and hope during the campaign to visit as 
much of it as possible, and to personally meet and converse 
with people, in public and private, upon all of these ques¬ 
tions. 

JOHN E. SWIFT! 

824 Valencia St., 

San Francisco, January 19, 1888. 



ubrary of congress 


0 033 239 179 3 


